Editorial: Peer review vs. open posting

Recently, while attending a reunion of my college graduating class, I got into a conversation with a former classmate of mine regarding the subject of peer review of journal manuscripts. My friend questioned the need for peer review, instead advocating a system whereby authors would post manuscripts on a website and readers would post reviews and critiques much as one presently does with websites such as TripAdvisor. He noted several advantages of such a system. First, manuscripts would be made available for dissemination much more rapidly than they are under peer review. The JACMP presently averages about six months from submission of a manuscript to acceptance, with another three months or so until publication. This time period includes the time it takes for the referees to prepare their reviews of a manuscript, for an author to respond to the reviewers’ comments and revise the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments, and for the referees to review the manuscript a second time. Sometimes a manuscript goes through a third or even fourth round of review, further increasing the time lag from submission to publication. If there were no review, a manuscript could be posted immediately, and the information presented in the manuscript could be shared with the readership community much more rapidly. The second advantage of such a system is the democratization of the review process. Every reader of a manuscript would become a potential reviewer, allowing for a variety of opinions as to the relative strengths, weaknesses, and utility of a manuscript. Instead of the reviewers being an “elite” class of experts, all medical physicists who read the manuscript would have the opportunity to provide input into the review process. My friend raised some valid points and, in fact, the idea of open review has been proposed for this, as well as for other, journals. Moreover, when I travel, I often take advantage of TripAdvisor for various travel recommendations. However, medical physics manuscripts are not hotel or restaurant recommendations, and I remain an advocate for peer review for the following reasons: